existence: semantics and syntax - Institut für Linguistik/Germanistik ...

TOWARDS ADYNAMIC ACCOUNT OF BE IN ENGLISH 35
by an index on the metavariable: BE SK . 34 The lexical entry for is is therefore as
shown in (28).
(28) is
IF ?Ty(e → t)
THEN go(〈↑ 1 〉); put(Tns(PRES)); go(〈↓ 1 〉);
put(Ty(e → t), Fo(BE SK ), ?∃x.Fo(x))
ELSE ABORT
3.1. Ellipsis and the Existential Focus Construction
The analysis of be as a predicate underspecified for content allows us to tackle the
bewildering variety of copular constructions in English in a uniform manner, the
burden of explanation shifting from considerations of the core ‘meaning’ of be as
denoting existence or identity to an account of inference in context that derives the
correct interpretations of sentences. Assuming that the copula does project underspecified
content, the value of the metavariable, BE SK , that it projects must be
established. This, like all other values for metavariables, may be freely identified in
context which gives us a way to account for certain types of ellipsis involving the
copula, as illustrated in (29). 35
(29) a. John’s really happy, John is.
b. A. Who was at the meeting?
B. Mary was.
Under the assumption that be projects a metavariable, the elliptical utterances in
(29) will be well-formed because the preceding utterance includes an accessible
(and relevant) one-place predicate which can substitute for the metavariable in the
normal way. The situation resulting from parsing the second clause in (29b) is
shown in Figure 11 up to the point of substitution. The resulting formula is, as
required, Fo(At ′ (Mary ′ ,(ɛ,y, Meeting ′ (y)))). 36
34 Note that this is not defined in terms of a LINK structure. In fact, the annotation would be best
construed as a K-state variable, so that BE SK might be better interpreted as λx.BE(ɛ, e, S K (e))(x).
However, in the absence of a coherent theory of events within DS, I leave this possibility to one side.
35 For more details about DS analyses of ellipsis in general, see Purver et al. 2006, Cann et al. to
appear and Kempson et al. 2006.
36 I do not in this paper pursue constraints on which predicates may be selected for substitution.
Clearly, potential substituends must be recently articulated and easily accessible. They are not, however,
restricted to primary predicates since (contrary to the claim by one of the referees of this paper) ellipsis
on secondary predicates is perfectly acceptable in English, as shown by (i):
i. Mary came home from work tired. John was, too. (So they skipped the party.)
There is, however, a linearity effect. Preposed secondary predicates are often less acceptable than final
ones (ii), but even these are not completely rejected by native speakers of English and (iii) is judged
as more acceptable than (ii). Note that the parsing perspective of DS should enable an account of the
difference in accessibility between the two positions. I do not, however, pursue this further here.
ii. ?* Exhausted but elated, John finished the marathon in just over three hours. Mary was too.
iii. % Drunk, John gatecrashed the party. Mary was, too (and it all went downhill from there).